From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I'm New[edit]

I just recently joined this project because I'm a big fan of mythology and I looked at the to do list but I'm not sure about how to do some of those things. You guys seem to have been involved in this project more than I have so if y'all can help me out in any way shape or form it would be appreciated.(PythonessofDelphi🐍 (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC))


Should the descriptive words "humankind", "humanity", and "mankind" (as they stand in the current version) all be used in the article rather than using only the word "humanity"? Buster Seven Talk 05:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Clarification to RfC: The phrase (as they stand in the current version) means that "humankind" remains at the lead, "humanity" remains in the "Terminology" section and the word "mankind" remains inside the quotes of the verbatim Joseph Campbell definition. When commenting please comment on both the RfC and the clarification. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


  • Support (as they stand in the current version). Also per Johnuniq, "mankind" must be in quotes. Rigidly and robotically repeating "humanity" on every occasion and avoiding the word "humankind" is absurd POV-smacking ideological bias against the word "humankind", a well-used and accepted literary word of the English language. Mechanical repetition of the term "humanity" to the exclusion of the word "humankind" also results in stilted prose. Ideological POV-driven removals of words do not belong in an encyclopaedia and are counter-intellectual. We are not in the business of banning words. Period. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 06:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I also support the clarification. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. If we just consider the flow of language and our desire to keep the reader interested, we editors should choose a variety of words that may mean the same thing. Constant use of the same word is redundant. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Note: I support "(as they stand in the current version)" addendum to this RfC Buster Seven Talk
  • I also support the clarification. Buster Seven Talk 00:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I want to address the "few readers will have ever seen the word humankind before" comment that was given in earlier discussions as a reason to remove "humankind". We have no way of knowing whether that suggestion is correct, but we do know that the word "humankind" is commonly used in written works, and this is not simple:, and Wikipedia should and does use words that are not part of a limited vocabularly. I hope no one wants to use "mankind" (other than in quotes) as that kind of expression is not part of modern writing, but naturally the article will use a variety of terms as part of good written expression. Johnuniq (talk) 06:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Also support clarification. There would need to be plausible reason for changing things, other than the degree of familiarity individual editors may have with a particular word. Johnuniq (talk) 01:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak support because other options than just the three offered exist as well. Sentences could be structured in such a way as to allow other options as well, such as "peoples," "ethnic groups," etc. I might myself find the word "humankind" to somewhat strike a somewhat jarring note, and think that other options, like the ones I suggested and others, might be somewhat preferable. John Carter (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - We ABSOLUTELY should not change what is in quotes, and the the difference between humankind and humanity is stylistic in this case. ReformedArsenal (talk) 12:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Disagree. "Humankind" should be avoided since it's rarely used, "Mankind" is traditional and is not "sexist." "Humanity" should be used carefully since it has multiple meanings. BiologistBabe (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
And it is, of course, a well-known fact that languages must never be allowed to reflect changes in people's thinking and behavior. Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors (talk) 02:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion[edit]

  • Comment It would´ve been nice if the RFC question was actually on the dispute, which is should the lead be humankind or humanity. The currently worded RFC is obviously going to pass, despite bypassing the actual dispute. Edgth (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
@ Editor Edgth. I wrote this RfC to resolve the dispute that I saw. If you see another dispute (what you call the actual dispute), you are free to create your own RfC to resolve that one. There was no attempt to bury anything or cleverly disguise anything. Wikipedia editors are collaborators not adversaries. No one is trying to trick you. ```Buster Seven Talk 04:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Nevertheless, it isn´t directly on the dispute and should probably end. I may do an RFC on the dispute, not sure. Edgth (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The RFC wording covers that specifically: Should the descriptive words "humankind", "humanity", and "mankind" (as they stand in the current version). Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
The main point of the question is should a diverse range of words be used. Who´s going to bother checking the article for the placement of those words? Edgth (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Given the apparent attempt to limit the dicussion to the words in the lead, I would suggest mankind or humanity be used first, the other word second (if repetition is a concern) and possibly alter any remaining duplication by altering the sentence structure to allow other commonly used phrases to be used, "humankind" probably, given its somewhat rare usage, being perhaps one of the last alternatives should there be excessive repetition. John Carter (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Edgth: I think the qualification (as they stand in the current version) is clear enough. Anyone who wants to comment on this RFC is assumed to have read all of it carefully before deciding. In addition our current comments will also help clarify that the expression (as they stand in the current version) means that the RfC participant agrees with the locations in which the words are placed in the current version of the article. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
No, it cleverly disguises the actual dispute which is over humankind or humanity being in the lead. Edgth (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • @John Carter: "Mankind" is not an option because per Wikipedia MOS gender-neutral words are preferred. Please see also relevant discussion at Bahá'í Faith. Also Google searches have established that the usage of "humankind" is actually preferred over "humanity" when combined with "creation" or similar words. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Mankind is gender-neutral as it refers to men and women. Just like woman is not sexist just because it has the letters m a n in the word. No, your Google search shows that a specific combination of words resulted in humankind being slightly more popular just for that combination. A Google search of mythology and humanity and mythology and humankind show that humanity got over 7 million hits while humankind got less than 10% of that. Edgth (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
"Mankind" is not gender-neutral. It is definitely sexist and its not because it contains the letters m, a, and n. Its sexist because it connotes all the historical and social dominance of men over women. ```Buster Seven Talk 03:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
That´s a depressing connotation. The word man is derived from the original word meaning person, ie human; somewhat ironic given the present dispute. Thus any connotation like that is not the fault of the word. Anyway, per my orginal comment, this RFC is useless and we should stop wasting people´s time. I may start an RFC that addresses the dispute directly, though whether I can be bothered remains to be seen. Edgth (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
As you can see the default duration for a RfC is 30 days. I agree that we should stop wasting peoples time, but I'm not sure "we" is the correct pronoun. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── RfC's work best when the question is as specific as possible. The endeavor is to eliminate disagreements, one at a time. If the RfC is too broad-based, at the end there is still confusion. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and I´ll make an RfC as specific and direct as possible to finally put this to rest. So can we close this one now? Edgth (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
No. Not yet. Maybe in two weeks as per instructions at WP:RfC. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
It says the original poster can withdraw it at any time. As this RfC won´t solve anything, can you exercise that right? Edgth (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Since editors have already !voted this cannot be withdrawn. We don't have to jump through hoops by opening another RfC. I have added a clarification so I will simply add that I accept the clarification to my comment above. Buster can do the same. I'll inform Johnuniq and John Carter. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I have informed both John Carter and Johnuniq of the clarification and invited them to comment on their acceptance of it or not. Meanwhile I indicated my support for the clarification and so has Buster7. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • ...and now Editor Johnuniq. @ Editor Edgth. I notice you have not participated in the survey. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I don´t plan to, as the clarification doesn´t make the RfC question direct or neutral to the dispute. Besides, see below for the proposed version that´s going to require another RfC. Edgth (talk) 23:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I was randomly selected for the RFC commentary and mythology is a subject I studied a great deal in High School, Greek, Roman, and Christian mostly since they hold significant consequences in Western civilizations today.
My suggestion is that the textual usages of the word "mankind" is traditional and should be retained as the primary term since male-specific shading of the English language is part of the English language, after all. The word "humankind" is not often used here on Earth. After all, we don't use the word "Dolpiniuskind" to describe the family of dolphins, so I would suggest that "humankind" not be the primary term, it is rarely used. Finally the word "humanity" has several meanings (such as when describing humanitarian emotive, such as "oh the humanity!",) so care must be taken when applying the term.
Also it is suggested that "mankind" is "sexist." That's complete bullshit. The English language is what it is. Let's not neutralize or feminize the English language. BiologistBabe (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 09:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Didn't Neil Armstrong say "That's one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind" when he first landed on the moon, on July 21, 1969? warshy¥¥ 16:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment What does that have to do with Mythology? I thought the Moon landing actually happened. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 09:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

30 days?[edit]

The RfC page says "The default duration of an RfC is 30 days, because the RFC bot automatically delists RfCs after this time. Editors may choose to end them earlier or extend them longer. Deciding how long to leave an RfC open depends on how much interest there is in the issue and whether editors are continuing to comment." )

  • The RfC process is voluntary and designed to bring in viewpoints from outside the dispute to attempt to negotiate a solution. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

This discussion was moved from RfC's threaded discussion since it raised a complimentary topic[edit]

I´d like the clause that contains humanity in the terminology section to be removed, as it is just a repeat with one word changed of the clause in the lead. Thus, the lead would then be changed to humanity and there would be no repitition problems with humanity and the current repitition would be removed. I suspect that would require a different RfC, as you´d be eagre to revert that. Edgth (talk) 04:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Invalid concern. Per WP:LEAD, the lead is supposed to provide an overview of the article contents, including details of the definition. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Valid concern, as the lead is supposed to be a ´´summary of its most important aspects´´, not replicate them. This in the terminology section: ´´Alan Dundes defines myth as a sacred narrative which explains how the world and humanity evolved into their present form, "a story that serves to define the fundamental worldview of a culture by explaining aspects of the natural world and delineating the psychological and social practices and ideals of a society".´´ I would remove ´´a sacred narrative which explains how the world and humanity evolved into their present form,´´ as it is unneeded due to the quote that follows and it repeats the sentence in the lead. Edgth (talk) 04:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Not really. The terminology section expands on the definition and explains it, while the lead, quite properly, just borrows the short definition and presents it at the beginning of the article. No reason or need to obliterate it. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I´m sure there´s a sentence in some guideline that we shouldn´t repeat things exactly in an article. As the lead already contains a summary of Alan´s views, the terminology should just show his quote, as the quote doesn´t need to be explained. The article is essentially saying that same thing three times, first in the lead then twice in the terminology section. Edgth (talk) 22:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Linguists like humankind[edit]

A trip to my bookshelf found this,
  • From Garner's Modern American Usage: "Humankind, a 17th Century creation, is unexceptionable, while mankind is, to many people, a sexist word. The prudent writer will therefore resort to humankind".
  • From The New Fowler's Modern English Usage: "First used in the 17th century as an ocassional variant of the human race or of mankind, the term (humankind) has gathered strength in the 20th century, sometimes written as two words the word is also favored by those who judge mankind to be unacceptable in our politically correct times". ```Buster Seven Talk 05:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
That´s only relevant if we´re debating between mankind and humankind. Edgth (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Comparative mythology[edit]

Is this statement :"However, modern-day scholars tend to be more suspicious of comparative approaches, avoiding overly general or universal statements about mythology"

is generally representative of all views or its only according to Northup? (Northup, Lesley. "Myth-Placed Priorities: Religion and the Study of Myth") --PLNR (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

garbled text in article[edit]

(quoted from Talk:The Death of Koschei the Deathless#garble):
The underlined clause, in The Death of Koschei the Deathless#Plot, is garbled:

Soon after Ivan finds out that Koschei took Marya Morevna away, and chases him. When he gets him for the first time, Koschei tells Ivan he lets him go, but Ivan doesn't give in, and Koschei kills him, puts his remains into a barrel and throws it into the sea.

I have no idea what's meant, so I'm going to mention it on the pages of the three projects that claim interest in the page. --Thnidu (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Page Link for hyperbolic[edit]


In second paragraph, the link to the word "hyperbolic" (phenomena to truthful or hyperbolic accounts of historical events) taking us to the page "Euhemerism" where there is no definition for hyperbolic. 

Thanks, Allwinalexbaskar (talk) 07:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

"Modern mythology" needs citations[edit]

The section titled "Modern mythology" needs to be rewritten to incorporate inline citations using the Wikipedia style. Right now all it has are authors' names and page numbers making it look like a college term paper. I realize this will take some time but it would make this article much better. Be a hero or a heroine and fix this! Thank you! Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors (talk) 02:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Myth-ritual theory examples needed[edit]

From the entry under Myth-ritual theory: "According to the myth-ritual theory, the existence of myth is tied to ritual.[52] In its most extreme form, this theory claims that myths arise to explain rituals.[53] This claim was first put forward by the biblical scholar William Robertson Smith.[54] According to Smith, people begin performing rituals for a reason that is not related to myth...."

Could someone with knowledge of this subject supply an example or two of rituals people began performing that are not related to myth here? Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors (talk) 02:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


Mythographer redirects to this page, but this page does not contain an explanation for what a mythographer is. It also contains links to Mythographer that then just redirect back here. (talk) 14:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)